A bill that would make repeated convictions for drunk driving a felony under Colorado law was unanimously passed Thursday by the House Appropriations Committee.Similar approval was expected to be given on the House floor Thursday afternoon. However, Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, the prime sponsor of the bill, said there are still hurdles to cross before Colorado joins 45 other states ...

Typical politicians. No real get-tough solutions, just more of the same watered-down nonsense. So, if you're the kind of bloke who has a few drinks before getting behind the wheel, you get a couple of busts before you get charged with a felony,

You've endangered others with your recklessness, but we'll give you two passes.

Now, if you try shooting a gun into the air and don't hit anyone, I promise you that felony charges would apply if you got busted.

But with a car they will give you a few chances.

Why not make it a felony the first time at a certain BAC level (not .05)? With that felony there should be forfeiture of the car, mandatory jail time, and a large fine.

Until drunk driving is taken seriously, it will continue as is. If they make the penalties attention-getting, it will give more drivers pause before getting behind the wheel.

And don't get me started on this Ferrandino creep. When is he leaving, again?

Last edited by Big Lug on April 10th, 2014, 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Say you have a driver who gets a DUI when he's younger and another in his 30s," Ferrandino said. "What happens if he gets one when he's 60 and another when he's 70 ??? do you really want to call him a habitual offender?"

Yes, if you get 3 DUI's in your lifetime and for some reason don't know to not drink and drive, you have earned that felony. It isn't like someone who gets 3 DUI's has only drank and driven 3 times, we should get these people off the streets one way or another. Why do we have to wait until they kill someone?

Dick_Tater wrote:"Say you have a driver who gets a DUI when he's younger and another in his 30s," Ferrandino said. "What happens if he gets one when he's 60 and another when he's 70 ??? do you really want to call him a habitual offender?"

Yes, if you get 3 DUI's in your lifetime and for some reason don't know to not drink and drive, you have earned that felony. It isn't like someone who gets 3 DUI's has only drank and driven 3 times, we should get these people off the streets one way or another. Why do we have to wait until they kill someone?

Dick_Tater wrote:"Say you have a driver who gets a DUI when he's younger and another in his 30s," Ferrandino said. "What happens if he gets one when he's 60 and another when he's 70 ??? do you really want to call him a habitual offender?"

Yes, if you get 3 DUI's in your lifetime and for some reason don't know to not drink and drive, you have earned that felony. It isn't like someone who gets 3 DUI's has only drank and driven 3 times, we should get these people off the streets one way or another. Why do we have to wait until they kill someone?

Uh, you can get a DUI without killing someone.

And your first DUI can be the result of killing someone.

"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." (Barack Obama August 21, 2010)

Dick_Tater wrote:"Say you have a driver who gets a DUI when he's younger and another in his 30s," Ferrandino said. "What happens if he gets one when he's 60 and another when he's 70 ??? do you really want to call him a habitual offender?"

Yes, if you get 3 DUI's in your lifetime and for some reason don't know to not drink and drive, you have earned that felony. It isn't like someone who gets 3 DUI's has only drank and driven 3 times, we should get these people off the streets one way or another. Why do we have to wait until they kill someone?

Uh, you can get a DUI without killing someone.

Not arguing that, I bet most DUI's don't end with a fatality. Though statistics show that this is the most likely way you'd get killed while driving. I personally knew 3 people who are no longer with us because of drunk drivers. Most everyone I know does not have a DUI. I know plenty of people with 1 DUI ( guessing they learned ) and only 1 person with 2 ( whom admits to it & is in AA ). So I would guess you would have to be a real special kind of person to go for 3, one who cares nothing of anyone else or whom cannot control their addiction. But even with the addiction, it does not force you behind the wheel of a vehicle, that is a choice. So if you get 2 DUI's, drink and still not know better than to get behind the wheel, I'd say that your gene pool could use a little chlorine.

Big Lug wrote:...Now, if you try shooting a gun into the air and don't hit anyone, I promise you that felony charges would apply if you got busted.

...Why not make it a felony the first time at a certain BAC level (not .05)? With that felony there should be forfeiture of the car, mandatory jail time, and a large fine.

It might help if you learn a little bit about what you are talking about before you comment.

No, if you recklessly shoot a gun into the air (not trying to kill anyone) it is called CRS 18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons - and it is a Misdemeanor Class 2.

Also, the presumptive limit for DUI Per Se is .08, not .05. .05 is DWAI Per Se - Driving While Ability Impaired.

If you set up a target and started shooting with a highway downwind and a cop happened by, the charge he would likely file would be "reckless endangerment" ... also a misdemeanor. If you accidentally killed a passing motorist it would be a felony. My opinion on DUI is similar - if your intoxication causes accident and injury, that should be a serious felony. On the other hand, putting someone in prison because he or she has a substance abuse problem is backwards.With an acquired tolerance, some people who drink alcohol daily are able to drive at .08 without causing accidents.

I'd bet even money that if this in fact makes it through the quagmire that is our legislature, our illustrious representatives and senators will manage to exclude themselves from it. We are governed by crooks and incompetents and we are guilty of being at least as incompetent by continually electing and re-electing them to office.

I am reminded that just last year we had a member of the legislature stopped for driving under the influence who even had a loaded firearm in the car with her. Anyone outside of government would have found themselves in far more caca than she did, I guarantee you.

They should pass no law that they direct to not impact them personally just like the lowbrows in congress and the senate in D.C. aren't personally impacted by the Affordable Care Act. If you want to get serious about drunk driving, do it, but don't exclude anyone and don't tolerate any politician or anyone else getting any slack because of his or her connections.

And don't expand an already existing industry of ambulance chasers that exclusively address driving under the influence charges.

"Sometimes the only thing that keeps me from being pessimistic is knowing that when the country collapses, the people most responsible will die out in the first winter." --Frank Fleming

The only reason for doing this is deterrence. In states with harsher laws (Colorado is very harsh already), does slapping a "felon" label on the person deter drinking and driving? Are there any statistics to back this up? Before the citizens commit to millions of $$$ to incarcerate more people, we need evidence that this is the solution.

You could tear out the parking lots at all bar locations. That would probably deter driving to the bar and driving home. You could only allow bars in zones that have easy access to public transit,,,,but then other riders would have to suffer the drunks going home.

Or we could just outlaw bars in Colorado and become the "prohibition" state.

I'm being sarcastic, for anyone who thinks my suggestions are serious. Our culture supports business owners. We're always pro-business,,,,even when they sell liquor to people who drove to their establishment. Can't hurt the business owner, who seems to have some kind of inalienable right to do this....but we can beat the h_ll out of the customer who drinks.

How do we pay for it??? Let's start by impounding their car after the second DUI conviction and auction it off and the proceeds go to a convicts rehab pool???. If they use somebody else's car, the same goes??????after people hear of cars be taken away by the state, you'll start seeing a lot of bicycles parked in front of bars???.

Last week, some of his Democratic colleagues questioned where the money to pay for the measure would come from. At that time, the estimated cost for fully funding the bill was about $34 million (it has subsequently been reduced to about $27 million).

And what is the value of a human life? Not just the people that die but also those who are disabled for life. Who pays for the medical expenses, rehab, therapy & in many cases lifelong disability payments?

"Say you have a driver who gets a DUI when he's younger and another in his 30s," Ferrandino said. "What happens if he gets one when he's 60 and another when he's 70 — do you really want to call him a habitual offender?"

Two to six years in prison because you shared some wine with your wife at dinner and got caught up in a sobriety checkpoint? Freakin' ridiculous!! Thank the MADD mothers, who have nothing else to do but make everyone else's life miserable like their own.

Most Americans do not realize that even a DWAI in Canada is a felony, and it takes 10 years and tons of paperwork to enter that country after one here. If you have 2 you might as well forget about ever getting into that country, unless of course you are a pro hockey player. The police state will probably be using the tracking devices on cell phones to see if people with 2 DUI's are at a bar, or set up more and more warrantless checkpoints. The U.S. has more people in prison then the rest of the world combined right now, so start building more prisons.